Skip to comments.Astronomers discover oldest star: Formed shortly after the Big Bang 13. 7 billion years ago
Posted on 02/10/2014 7:49:57 AM PST by EveningStar
A team led by astronomers at The Australian National University has discovered the oldest known star in the Universe, which formed shortly after the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago.
The discovery has allowed astronomers for the first time to study the chemistry of the first stars, giving scientists a clearer idea of what the Universe was like in its infancy.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
[patiently waiting here for ALGORE or HANSEN or MANN or their surrogates to be out there claiming that AGW has significantly reduced the lifespan of our SUN.]
But they deny that GW has anything to do with the Sun but everything to do with Man.
Not quite. They deny the sun has any affect here on earth. I maintain they are that stupid enough, that duplicitous, and that deceitful enough to claim OUR AGW here will cause the sun to live a shorter life span. There’s a big difference.
What if the Big Bang never happened but many little bangs?.
Really? I have read in the past ten years that the “big bang” theory was changed to accommodate the errors in their findings. So is this another change to try and fix the fix.
no picture of this star?
Probably keeps the temperature really high and watches Matlock reruns.
That is my contention. What went BANG in the beginning?
I have a few concerns with this article.
The Big Bang happened precisely 13.845 billion years ago, not 13.7 billion years ago. Preciseness is important in scientific articles.
Also, define “shortly”.
Lastly, the description of how you make a star like our sun deserves a comedy award.
The Big Bang is a big bust. It is a man’s meager attempt to explain the universe. The great hunt for the required dark matter has come up empty. Maybe time for a new theory?
Read the books by Brian Greene. He has a knack for making these things a “LITTLE” less obscure. He can certainly explain things better than me!
The theory currently is that due to quantum fluctuations, what was, became what is. Or, there was a clash of the braines that are the multiverse, or, just the primordial atom became unstable and bang.
You can’t get much better with quantum physics. :)
|· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe ·|
|Google news searches: exoplanet · exosolar · extrasolar ·|
Thanks EveningStar, extra to APoD.
Here's a clue.... It looks exactly like all the other stars. you've seen one, you've seen them all.
Doesn’t look a day over 10 billion.
I cite two examples:
1) Democratic Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, on a visit to NASA to watch the touchdown and roving of Curiosity (a probe rover on MARS), asked “Is it gonna go to where the astronauts planted the flag?; and
2) Democratic Congressman Hank Johnson in a hearing on Marine buildup of Guam expressed a concern that the island would “tip over” because of the added weight on one side.
Comparing today's current inbred, imbecilic, uneducated Democrats and their voters to ancient trailblazers of thought and science (to the extent they could, given societal advancement then) is like comparing a worthless feather to a sledge hammer.
There's a very good reason why that old WKRP Cincinnati episode about the “Great Thanksgiving Helicopter Giveaway” was so funny.
I scoffed at the idea and he got incensed and said he would pay me 100 Bucks if I could come up with something that couldn't be a direct "result" of the Big Bang...
I told him I was game.
I sipped my beer and looked in right in the eye and asked what made the Big Bang go Boom?
His shoulders slumped and he got out his wallet and handed me 5 twenties...
Has more logic than the big bang.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.